RepRapFirmware 3.2 planned improvements

zapta

@dc42 said in RepRapFirmware 3.02 planned improvements:

I've added M73 to the list for consideration.

Thanks.

CCS86

@dc42 said in RepRapFirmware 3.02 planned improvements:

It's on the list for implementation, but IMO it's pointless as long as jerk or junction deviation is needed at corners. The first-order motion components need to be made continuous before or at the same time as worrying about third and high order components.

What is causing that dependance?

zapta

@dc42, FYI, I run a small experiment correlating the M73 markers with actual prints (replaced them with G10 and M140 that propagated the values to standby fields in the json). Results look very good, both for linearity and absolute time values.

My slicer has default setting, without any calibration for the max speed, acceleration and jerk of my printer.

You can probably run tests much faster using simulator mode.

copystring

Please add inverted M80/M81 for meanwell PSUs.
I know. I'm inpatient. Is it a lot of work to implement this?

SpoonUnit

Could the option be added to set the min limit for behaviours similar to that controlled my M190. A default of 41 seems fine, but ultimately arbitrary, and having the option to hand control of this value to the operator would be nice. M143 sets max limits, perhaps it could be overloaded to support specifying min limits also?

droftarts

@dc42 really looking forward to playing with G5 Bezier curves!

Ian

dc42

@copystring said in RepRapFirmware 3.02 planned improvements:

Please add inverted M80/M81 for meanwell PSUs.
I know. I'm inpatient. Is it a lot of work to implement this?

This is included in the planned work to make the PS_ON pin configurable.

arhi

@dc42

Support G5

Does this involve maybe also G15 / G16 ? (I don't know if any slicer know how to use them, I only used them when I wrote code manually on my old milling machine)

DaveA

Maybe I'm just more confused than normal but I don't understand the versioning system.
Is 3.1.0, soon to be 3.1.1, not the latest stable release? If so, why is the next version going to be 3.02?

A Former User

@DaveA understandable confusion; the current 3.1.0 was supposed to be 3.01 until about the day it was released, presumably what would be 3.02 will be 3.2.0.

dc42

@DaveA said in RepRapFirmware 3.02 planned improvements:

Maybe I'm just more confused than normal but I don't understand the versioning system.
Is 3.1.0, soon to be 3.1.1, not the latest stable release? If so, why is the next version going to be 3.02?

The next stable release, not counting patch releases such as 3.1.1, will now be called be 3.2.0. I have changed the title of this thread.

garyd9

I'm hoping requests for 3.2 will also be entertained: Extend M409 to allow multiple keys to be requested.

For example, assume something embedded that wants to determine how much time is probably left in a print (using the simulated time) would need to request job.file.simulatedTime as well as job.duration. Having to request the entire 'job' key to 3 levels deep can result in a large buffer. Having to make 2 M409 requests doubles the time needed to get the information.

On the other hand, if M409 supported multiple keys, the request and response could be simplified:

M409 K"job.duration","job.file.simulatedTime"

(For discussion, I've also started a new thread: https://forum.duet3d.com/topic/16450/m409-multiple-keys-at-once)

oliof

Regarding line item 48: According to Marlin docs, UBL does support loading an existing mesh and applying 3-point or grid based tilt adjustment.

jay_s_uk

Is the spreadsheet in the first post still being maintained?
Does the equivalent exist for 3.3?

dc42

@jay_s_uk said in RepRapFirmware 3.2 planned improvements:

Is the spreadsheet in the first post still being maintained?
Does the equivalent exist for 3.3?

Many of the items that were planned for 3.2 have been deferred to 3.3. You can see what's implemented in 3.2 in the RRF3 whatsnew file.

A Former User

@dc42 said in RepRapFirmware 3.2 planned improvements:

Many of the items that were planned for 3.2 have been deferred to 3.3. You can see what's implemented in 3.2 in the RRF3 whatsnew file.

why the continual push back ?

dc42

It's hardly a continual push back. The 3.2 release includes nearly 40 improvements, not counting bug fixes.

A Former User

@dc42 said in RepRapFirmware 3.2 planned improvements:

It's hardly a continual push back. The 3.2 release includes nearly 40 improvements, not counting bug fixes.

let me re-phrase then : why the push back ?

Phaedrux

@CaLviNx Market conditions?

A Former User

@Phaedrux said in RepRapFirmware 3.2 planned improvements:

@CaLviNx Market conditions?

which means what exactly ?

I think there is more than a few users waiting on functionality fixes (which in my opinion should have be a priority) which would allow the correct use of pre-purchased equipment to be used/maintained properly/easily